@mcflurry  
Surly you meant Windows95 IIRC 98 only came on CD-ROM. Then again I could be thinking of 98SE…

Weird,but how Twilight holds the bacon reminds me of installing programs. More like the hungarian word for install what is telepít. Oh good ol’ Windows 98 :)
 
PS:  
[Bacon Telepítése [?][X]]  
Bacon (AAV)  
_________________  
[IIIIIIIIIIII50%III ]

Pigs, like Cattle, Lamb, and Venison are quite frankly tasty little buggers!

>argument about vegitarianism in the comments
 
clicks unsubscribe faster than humanly possible

I considered writing a comment, but I realized this discussion has already been ruined.

@Metropical  
“We are a predator species, we MUST eat mean to obtain the appropriate nutrients to survive. “
 
We’re opportunists, we eat anything that is a viable food source, meat, plants that are poisonous in large quantities, fungi, and other things.

@Metropical  
And to just end all this stupid arguing.
 
We are a predator species, we MUST eat mean to obtain the appropriate nutrients to survive. Evolution/Nature/God/whatever made us that way. Without meat, none of us would be here because we would have died out as a species, among other things that could have wiped us off the planet. We have only been recently able to obtain said nutrients from vegetarian sources via, chemistry technology and globalization.  
Now, I respect those who forgo meat, assuming they found a viable alternative to stay healthy with, but please, do not try to push your moral ideas and beliefs on others. The majority will and always will eat meat, not just because it tastes good and for the nutrients, but because it’s a necessity to survive. Remember, most people don’t even have the tech or the economy to accept food sources from other parts of the world or chemically make nutritional alternatives to meat sources.

@Background Pony  
The major issue is health. Many nutrients will be lost because that meat isn’t obtaining them from a natural environment. As well, you can always but meat from specific places where you know for sure that the animals in question are raised properly. For example, I live near Amish country. We, most of the time, get our beef and other meats from the and you can see just by driving around that the cows and other livestock live in very comfy conditions.
 
As well, vat grown food isn’t economically viable, besides the fact that it cost thousands to millions in technology, it won’t be available to the average farmer, nor people in countries where agriculture is still the main source of income and the basis for their economy.

@Background Pony  
Yeah, stem cells ftw

Ok, how about we all just agree that the most morally cut and dry solution to this is to invest in the technology for vat grown meat, thus entirely bypassing the need to rear and kill livestock.
 
God I wish this was the future.

@Keith Mowz  
Vagan? Here comes Flit!

@Background Pony  
Yes, predators need to cause suffering, humans don’t. It’s not eating the meat that causes animals to suffer, it’s how we raise them.
 
And yes, meat was probably key to our evolution, but if we were talking about inflicting pain on humans you’d hardly justify it with some historic fact.
 
And I’m not condemning meat-eating, I eat meat myself. I do think people should stop to consider the ethical debate.

Jeez, I leave for one week and now a “Is eating meat wrong” thread just started

@Enkidu  
You admit that we can’t fully measure what the difference is, yet you insist on believing that that means there is no difference. You go on about suffering of the prey, yet you ignore that without prey, predators will starve.
 
You hold an incredibly naive and shortsighted belief that eating meat is somehow a wrong against the animal being eaten. As though it would have been immortal if we hadn’t come in and skinned it. As though letting the body rot in the ground is nobler than taking sustenance from it.
 
Also, the size of the brain and the detail of its folds are only generally related, and neither attribute is a certain indicator of intelligence.
 
Funny you should mention evolution in the first place, because humans did elvolve from a nearly exclusive herbivorous race to a fully omnivorous one, and many supported heories indicate that the ability to consume meat is one of the primary factors that gave humans the energy to evolve ourbrains to the level of sophistication necessary for creating the original civilizations. So there’s your biological arguement, eating meat is a huge factor of what allows you to even have the capacity to condemn meat-eating.

@Background Pony  
I don’t think humans and animals perceive pain in an identical manner, but humans possess a very limited understanding of how great the difference is. I know that predation occurs naturally, I know that for many animals it needs to occur. That doesn’t change whether or not they are suffering.
 
You seem to hold undue certainty in your belief that the suffering of animals cannot be compared to that of humans, but then it is the easier belief as you can continue living as society has raised you.
 
(and though this is off the topic, brain size is certainly of consequence for a fixed level of detail (the brain has been getting more detailed over our evolution but also much larger))

@Enkidu
 
Brain size is of no consequence, it’s the structure and the way it operates that matter.
 
Your sense of morality is misguided. Not only do animals perceive suffering and distress on a completely different level than a human (despite what a tiny portion of research cherry-picked by PETA might suggest), but since you can’t possibly eliminate predation in nature without completely and utterly destroying it, your moral standards are out of touch with reality. It’s the way things work in the grand scheme of things - competition, cooperation, coexistence, codependence and straight out predation are all so intertwined that you can’t just rip a major aspect out simply because the development of societal norms around you and your upbringing caused you to form moral standards that make you sympathize with anything and everything that moves and reacts to stimuli.
 
We just managed to replicate and industrialize a certain part of the grand scheme in order to sustain our needs that have grown beyond anything nature can handle. Most civilized nations strive to provide decent living conditions to livestock and to kill them as mercifully as possible. In the wild, death rarely comes quickly and without pain, and it’s not like cattle do anything notable when left to their own devices. They feed, breed and die. Hell, even some prokaryotes form colonnies and pull away when poked at, this is barely different in principle.
 
As far as I’m concerned, until game or livestock are able to form a coherent message and contact us on account of them being self-aware and objecting to their treatment, I’ll regard them as lesser lifeforms and eat their meat without feeling guilty.

@Tk3997  
There is currently no method that would allow us to objectively decide who is sentient and who isn’t. Our physiology is so similar to that of other mammals that there is good reason to suspect other mammals would share such a mental similarity. The fact that our brain is larger may only mean they have a simpler consciousness, like a child or someone who’s half-asleep.
 
When you have no reasonable way to show that an organism (with which we share an ancestor from about 80 million years ago) is non-sentient, then you are taking a chance, and say it turned out that you were wrong, you would have been ignorantly causing suffering all along.

@Enkidu  
If you must preach at least don’t use junk science please. Pigs have never demonstrated anything even approaching basic sapience never mind human like cognition. Pigs are intelligent in the sense of being adaptable to their environments with good pattern recognition and memory. This is not sapience, pigs have not even demonstrated self-awareness in studies.
 
This rather torpedo your second point as the golden rule you attempt to invoke rather intrinsically assumes both sides are actually self-aware and understand the concept of reciprocity. I rather suspect a wolf would still eat you if it was hungry, even if you happened to be a naturalist greatly interested in helping it’s species and attempted to explain this too it. As another example hunting on land in a number of areas was fairly recently stopped. The Deer have repaid us for this by breeding out of control, ruining our laws and gardeners, and wandering onto the roads in increasing numbers totaling cars (including my own) as they’ve come to realize there is no longer any predator threat in the area.
 
So If I was “in there shoes” I suspect my thoughts on the matter would amount to… actually I wouldn’t have any because I’d be, you know, an animal with no higher reasoning, rationality, or self awareness. Morals really only apply only when both sides actually have the cognitive faculties to understand the concept.
 
Feel however you like, but know this: the pig does not care. The pig is not grateful. You are not ‘saving’ the pig, for the pig has no concept of it’s own existence. Equally if you decide to eat meat the pig does not care. The pig does not hate. you You are not ‘killing’ the pig because the pig is not even self-aware to begin with.

@Keith Mowz  
XD

@Ichijoe  
Not to mention, pigs are truffle hunters. I’m thinking mostly for truffle. Anything like leather derived from the body would probably be done when the pig dies of natural causes. Also, they’re great garbage disposal units. :/

@Urishima
 
Joke’s on you, I eat disassembled animals and my bowels put them back together.

@Keith Mowz  
Pretty much. Remember kids, eating meat is not ok unless you are a Anakonda.

@Enkidu  
So, wait, I should be eating animals whole and alive, then? :V

@Evowizard25  
Yes, I agree. Sometimes people will just ignore the ethical debate because they think “If everyone else is eating meat, why shouldn’t I?”.
 
Pig intelligence having been demonstrated to a greater extent than other animals we commonly eat, has the stronger case for human-like sentience. If we see them as having human-like sentience then one can ask the question “How would you like to be in their shoes?”. Of course, a very fundamental moral is to not do to others that which you would not like done to you.

man that would be n intriguing conundrum to figure out. how should she deal with her new omnivore tendencies?